W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2001


From: Adam Freeman <afreeman@lightsurf.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:51:01 -0800
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>, "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Cc: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NFBBIBMJIOBNIGEECJHCCEPBCDAA.afreeman@lightsurf.com>
While the link property is a little funky, it addresses a common problem:
having two (OR MORE) different sets of properties for the same resource.
Having a GETSRC and a GET for the same resource limits you to having two
representations of the resource, the original and the modified (or authored
or whatever you want to call it).  What if you want a third representation
of that resource?  With the link property, you can accomplish that (I

GETSRC should return the same thing that a GET without any properties should
return.  It seems redundant.  Why not just have more than one set of
properties.  GET with blank properties is the same as GETSRC.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 4:22 PM
To: Jim Whitehead
Cc: WebDAV
Subject: Re: Ideas: GETSRC & MULTIPUT

> The source link didn't work. Telling people to use the source link is not,
> IMO, productive.

Under what conditions did it not work?  Do you mean just never implemented?

> GETSRC could be defined as something like, "returns to the client a
> representation of the resource suitable for editing in an authoring
> so we avoid issues of getting at the "true" state of the resource. GETSRC
> wouldn't have the same caching properties as GET; I don't see that as
> a big problem for authoring.
> So, which specific HTTP design principle(s) does this proposal violate?

The one that calls for different resources to be accessed using different
The set of source URI for some other URI are different resources.  Since
there can be many more than one source per representation, the notion of
creating a new method to avoid one indirection is just wrong.

Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 19:51:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC